With the confusion that unfolded Wednesday, city candidates might think they are running for a seat in the Sunshine State, infamous for the 2000 presidential recount and “hanging chads.”

A day after Clerk Richard Kachmar certified six mayoral candidates and 17 council candidates for the May 13 election, one resident claimed Wednesday that he received enough signatures to run, but was left out of the race. There were also concerns that the clerk’s office required less signatures than needed for mayoral and at-large candidates.

“The clerk’s office was saying that I didn’t have my petitions when in reality I did,” hopeful at-large candidate Lee Ingram said Wednesday. “It’s a mess down there. They don’t want me on the ballot, it’s just that simple.”

Advertisement

Ingram said prior to his final count he had 202 certified signatures and then turned in another 85 before the deadline. The clerk’s office required 238 signatures for qualification in the at-large race this year.

Ingram said he was informed 26 signatures of the 85 he turned in were invalid, but he would still meet the requirement.

“I asked, ‘So where are the rest of my petitions?’” he said. “They just thought I was going to accept that.”

When asked how he felt about the democratic process in the city, Ingram responded “That’s why they don’t want me on the ballot because I’m outside of the democratic process. They don’t want an outsider in.”

“They can’t buy me, they can’t offer me nothing, they ain’t got nobody that could shut me down, they got nothing to control me,” he added.

Another possible discrepancy was the amount of signatures required for candidates to become certified as directed by the clerk’s office.

Kachmar determined 238 signatures were needed for the at-large and mayoral races, when in fact 385 were required per state statute.

Resident Michael McGrath caught the error Tuesday.

“I just saw the numbers and they looked awfully low,” he said, adding 1 percent of all registered city voters are needed, not Kachmar’s interpretation of 2 percent of voters from the last general election. “Everyone was given the wrong number.”

“This latest disastrous mistake by our clerk and deputy clerk for me raises serious doubt about their effectiveness,” McBride said. “I have voiced these concerns before and now in this critical stage of the election process, our city is yet faced with another black eye.”

Mayoral candidate Paul Perez said he still submitted more than 450 petitions because his campaign was “aware of the proper statutory requirements.”

“The clerk’s process as carried out by appointed representatives of the city, appears replete with discrepancies and is a painful reminder of the serious dysfunction the residents of Trenton continue to be subjected to,” Perez stated.

When reached by phone, the clerk’s office declined comment.

“Everything is under review,” said Cordelia Stanton, the city’s deputy clerk.

McGrath said the safest way to move forward will be to approve the results as is.

“We can’t really go back in time and change that now,” he said. “If we try to get them to collect more signatures in 10 days, then you’re going to invite a lawsuit if anyone can’t get the extra signatures in that time.”

McGrath also didn’t expect the overwhelming response to the apparent mistake.

“It just seems like a huge overreaction to something,” he said. “There are real issues — people are getting killed all the time and serious crime in the city — and this for some reason has everyone scrambling.”

About the Author

Originally from Webster, N.Y., David has been a reporter in N.J. for the past three years (first in Phillipsburg and now in Trenton).He is a Temple alum who interned at the Philadelphia Daily News. Reach the author at dfoster@trentonian.com
.